Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Lawrence v. Texas Incident a Hoax?

That's what Janice Law says in a new book according to WorldNetDaily.

Now, my first response is that people will do anything for a buck. My second response is that people will do anything to make gays look like evil monsters.

Let's keep in mind that this judge/author did not preside over the case in any way. This book is going mainly off of rumor, from what I can tell.

Question for you guys. If anti-gay folks out there claim to "love the sinner but hate the sin," why do they continue to call gay people "homosexuals" instead of gays and lesbians? It is pretty obvious that gays prefer not to be called "homosexuals." My theories- they either do it just to anger gays or they do it to keep the word "sex" in every description of gay people they make. Any other ideas?

10 Comments:

At 26/10/05 4:42 AM, Blogger grace said...

Brady,
Personally, I tend to use the word homosexual when I'm talking about those like my husband whose same sex attraction is unwanted...and then I guess my use spills over....but I typically use the word gay if I'm talking about people like you who are "happy" with their same sex attractions. I'm probably not the "typical" person you are talking about, though. At least I hope not. :)
grace

 
At 26/10/05 6:13 AM, Blogger BC WaterBoy said...

Brady, the concept of love the sinner hate the sin is pure BS. The word love is not to be taken lightly and what these hate groups do is so far removed from love. The word homosexual has a stigma attached to it that the anti-gay groups love to perpetuate and it certainly rallies the troups more than most labels except of course deviant or sodomite. What I really don't like is the label same sex attractions. The hate groups are using this more because it usually is preceded by unwanted. Grace mentioned in quotes "happy" with same sex attractions. Yes I am happy with who I am but it is more than being happy, it is being unashamed and not buying into stigmatization of my innate characteristics of being a gay man. The word unwanted is a word of convenience to avoid not buying into shame and stigmatization that religious groups seem to love to perpetuate.

 
At 26/10/05 6:37 AM, Blogger Brady said...

BC- thanks for the comment, very good points. I don't share the complaints about SSA, mainly because I think it is a fair way to describe people like Grace's husband. I agree with her that calling him gay wouldn't be entirely accurate. You make good points, though.

Grace, thanks for responding too. You are not the typical person I am talking about, I assure you. The problem is, I think the anti-gay folks (and here I am talking mainly about vehement anti-gay folks, not people like you) realize that the term "homosexual" has a negative connotation (like bc said).

Of course, I have said this before, but I think it is worth saying again here. If being gay is a sin, let it be a sin. But, to do things that they know intentionally paint gay people in a negative light is just nonsense, and really unChristian imo. I can assure you that calling gays "homosexuals" to intentionally create a negative connotation, and to spread often false statistics about how terrible they are is going to bring far fewer gays to Christ than the way you handle the situation.

 
At 26/10/05 8:46 AM, Blogger JJ said...

I've always thought that the reason anti-gay people use the word 'homosexual' is because it sounds more like a diagnosis, or an illness -- something that can be cured, something kind of deadly and important. On the other hand, the word 'gay' sounds almost kind of flippant, and like something that is relatively unimportant (in relation to, say, poverty, etc...) and so making a big deal out of it would be silly. Anyway, that's what I figured was the reason.

 
At 26/10/05 11:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would ban grace from posting here. I think she has an agenda.

 
At 26/10/05 12:50 PM, Blogger Brady said...

Anonymous-

First, I hope you are kidding.

Second, I don't make a habit of banning people,

Third, even if I did, Grace would be one of the last ones to be banned if I did ban people. She's the type of commenter blogs need more of.

 
At 26/10/05 7:02 PM, Blogger grace said...

Goodness! Thanks for your support Brady. You know I support you as well and always welcome your thoughts over at my place as well. My only agenda is to be your friend. I know you get that :). I personally can't imagine a life so boring that I couldn't love people and still disagree with them about some personal matters.
in Him,
Grace

 
At 26/10/05 7:06 PM, Blogger grace said...

BC,
Sorry to offend with the "happy" comment. It's my limited experience as a straight person which causes me to use words that don't quit "fit" for you. I agree completely with your more accurate assessment of what being gay is. Believe it or not, a person like my husband gets the bad attitude from both worlds...gay and straight...go figure. I totally understand what you are saying about your innate characteristics and not buying into stigmatizations. Again, didn't intend to offend.
grace

 
At 26/10/05 7:45 PM, Blogger BC WaterBoy said...

Grace, thanks for your comments, no offence taken or need to apologize. With all of the labels and rhetoric floating around out there, it is difficult not to get worked up about an issue that is essentially your life. I am a stickler when it comes to stigmatization of any sector of society and really, do any of us fall into any specific set of labels? Stigmatization is the biggest problem facing the gay community and we are certainly not alone with that. I do appreciate your clarification and thanks for taking the time to care. None of us really know each other until we walk in that person's shoes even for a moment.

 
At 28/10/05 6:56 AM, Blogger imphaldiary said...

Hmm.... interesting comments. Well I guess both are okey if it gives you an identity.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home